CONSUMER AWARENESS AND USE OF PRODUCT REVIEW WEBSITES

Ainsworth Anthony Bailey

ABSTRACT: This paper reports on a study that was undertaken to assess consumer awareness, and use, of product review websites. Factors included the impact of e-opinion leadership, consumer susceptibility to informational influence, and gender on awareness and use of these websites. Participants completed a survey that solicited information on awareness of product review websites, extent of usage, the aforementioned individual difference factors, as well as demographic information. Results indicated that consumers, generally, are aware of the existence of product review websites and there is moderate usage of, and varied uses for, these types of websites. Gender and certain individual difference factors, in particular e-opinion leadership, have an impact on usage and perceptions of these types of websites. Limitations of the study and future research issues are presented.

"The result is a magnificent flowering of interest communities, including those centered around product information. The most intriguing of these is Epinions.com (http://www.epinions.com), a vast and endlessly fascinating collection of member-supplied reviews on an enormous amount of consumer products. Among a number of product-review sites, Epinions has best applied those two major interest-community trends. It's a giant community with thousands of adept reviewers and millions of visitors. Furthermore, it uses clever technologies to maintain its appealing site and to generate several revenue streams, including one for the reviewers" (O'Leary 2002) One of the major developments on the Internet, from a consumer behavior perspective, is the growth in the number of websites where consumers can provide and read product reviews, and voice their complaints and opinions about various goods and services (Armstrong and Hagel 1996; Bailey 2004; Boush and Kahle 2001; Chatterjee 2001; O'Leary 2002; Perry 2000). A number of consumer-developed and marketerdeveloped websites allow consumers to provide reviews of, and feedback on, various brands that are available in the marketplace. This paper refers to these types of websites as product review websites. Among some of the more well-known product review websites are: (a) e-pinions (http://www.epinions.com), which bills itself as "a premier consumer reviews platform on the Web and a reliable source for valuable consumer insight, unbiased advice, in-depth product evaluations and personalized recommendations" (http://www.epinions.com/about/); (b) Consumer Search's productopia (http://www.productopia.com), which had its genesis in its founder's need to access multiple sources of product information prior to purchasing a desktop publishing system for a new business (http://www.productopia.com/); (c) Consumerreview.com (http://www.consumerreview.com),

which "consumers visit to learn, interact, and buy or sell the products showcased within...network of web communities" (http://www.consumerreview.com/channels/consumerreview/ data/main/about_us.html); and (d) Cnet.com (http://www.cnet.com), where one can find a number of reviews of electronic and technology products. As a result of the proliferation of these kinds of websites, consumers have access to a wealth of information, prior to, and even after, making various shopping decisions. The extent to which consumers rely on these websites for information has been the subject of previous research (Chatterjee 2001; Dholakia and Soltysinski 2001; Dholakia, Basuroy, and Soltysinski 2002). Chatterjee (2001) contended that word-ofmouth information available online is far more voluminous in quantity, compared to information that may be available offline; can be negative or positive in valence; and comes from a variety of sources (p. 129). This voluminous quantity of information has been shown to impact consumer behavior (see, e.g., Bickart and Schindler 2001; Dholakia and Soltysinski 2001; Ratchford, Lee, and Talukdar 2003). The stream of research on word-of-mouth communication also would suggest that consumers are likely to utilize information found on online product review websites. However, much of these studies have been experimental in nature, where participants have been deliberately exposed to product review websites and then asked to provide their feedback. The aim of this paper is to add to the discussion on the use of product reviews by consumers. Previous assessments of consumer use of product review websites have used experimental studies where consumers were forcibly exposed to information about these types of websites and then asked about their attitudes and perceptions (see, e.g., Chatterjee 2001; Chiou and Cheng 2003; Senecal and Nantel 2004). This study was, therefore, more interested in using survey research
JournalofInteractiveAdvertising,Vol6No1(Fall2005),pp.6881. 2010AmericanAcademyofAdvertising,Allrightsreserved ISSN15252019

69

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

to glean information from consumers regarding their awareness of product review websites and their usage of these types of websites in consumer decision making. In addition, we investigated the impact of two individual difference factors, consumer susceptibility to informational influence and consumer e-opinion leadership, and an oft-explored demographic factor, gender, on awareness and usage. The paper is organized as follows: First, there is a review of the relevant literature, which leads to certain research questions. Then, there is the report on the development of the questionnaire, the sample, as well as the measures used in the survey. Data collection and analysis, as well as the results, are also discussed. Finally, there is a general discussion of the research findings, as well as a presentation of the limitations of the study and avenues for future research. LITERATURE REVIEW Social Influence, Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence, and Online Product Reviews There is a large body of research in social psychology that has pointed to the impact that social influence can have on people's behavior (Apanovitch, Hobfoll, and Salovey 2002; Asch 1955; Dolinski, Nawrat, and Rudak 2001). Social information processing theory (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978) addresses mechanisms by which peers influence individuals' behavior and attitudes. According to this theory, social information consists of comments and observations made by people whose views an individual considers relevant. Researchers have shown the effects of social influence in different spheres (see, e.g., Dolinski, Nawrat, and Rudak 2001). Consumer researchers have also investigated the role of social influence and its impact on consumer behavior (Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Calder and Burnkrant 1977; Park and Lessig 1977; for recent examples, see Butcher, Sparks, and O'Callaghan 2002; Schlosser and Shavitt 2002). Word-ofmouth communication is one type of social influence that has received extensive attention in the consumer behavior literature, though much focus has been on negative word-ofmouth communication, as opposed to positive word-of-mouth communication (Laczniak, DeCarlo, and Ramaswami 2001; Richins 1982, 1983, 1984; Singh 1990). Researchers have shown that word of mouth communication has an impact on consumer attitudes (Bickart and Schindler 2001); consumer risk-taking (Woodside and Delozier 1976); short-term and long-term product judgments (Bone 1995); purchase decisions and choice behavior (Lau and Ng 2001); and is related to such variables as consumer complaining behavior (Blodgett, Granbois, and Walters 1993). The research on word-of-mouth is particularly relevant in the discourse on consumer use of online product review websites, since the information found on these websites represents electronic word-of-mouth communication. The Internet has facilitated more connections among consumers and is a forum for the exchange of information among consumers (Armstrong and Hagel 1996; Chatterjee 2001; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). Prior research has shown the impact of the Internet as a medium for consumer feedback and information, and its influence on consumer behavior. Bickart and Schndler (2001), for example, investigated how discussions within online communities impacted consumer behavior. Results from their study pointed to the efficacy of online forums in generating product interest. There was more focus, however, on how this information can be used to assist website developers with the development of better websites. Ratchford, Lee, and Talukdar (2003), in a study using data on automobile purchases collected in 1990 and 2000, found that the use of the Internet as an information source limited the amount of search in which consumers engaged. This suggests reliance on the Internet as a source of information. Hanson and Putler (1996) conducted a study on herd behavior and online product popularity in which they manipulated the perceived popularity of programs on a large commercial online system. The download counts of software, defined by them as how many previous users had obtained a copy of the software program, were artificially increased by repeated downloading. Then they recorded subsequent downloads of the programs made by an online service's subscribers, to assess whether a difference in relative download levels would influence future downloads for two products that were essentially the same. They found that the manipulation increased downloads of the treated program. The possible impact of the virtual environment on consumer behavior was further underscored by Dholakia and his colleagues. Dholakia and Soltysinski (2001) provided evidence for the herding bias in online auctions. This herding bias represents the tendency of many buyers to "gravitate toward, and bid for, auction listings with one or more existing bids, ignoring comparable or even more attractive unbid-for auction listings within the same product category and available at the same time" (Dholakia and Soltysinski 2001, p. 226). One factor that increased the herding bias, according to their study, was the difficulty to evaluate quality within a product category.

70

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

They suggested that consumers in these online auctions observed and used others' behavior as a guide to their own. Dholakia, Basuroy, and Soltysinski (2002) indicated that psychologists have found that the observable behaviors of others exert strong influences on individuals, since observed behavior may guide goal-directed behaviors by benefiting the informational and social motives of the decision maker (p. 117). Chatterjee (2001) investigated whether negative word-ofmouth information or reviews of online retailers affected evaluations and patronage intentions. In this study, online word-of-mouth information was operationalized as retailer reviews provided by comparison shopping engines, along with purchase information. The study focused on the effects of negative reviews on consumers' decisions to patronize the retailer, given that consumers needed to purchase a particular product. Their results showed that a majority of participants wanted to access product reviews when they were told that these reviews were available. Overall, they found that the effect of negative consumer reviews on consumers' perceptions of the reliability of a retailer and patronage intentions was moderated by the level of familiarity with the retailer. Chiou and Cheng (2003) manipulated message favorableness, message number, and brand image to assess their impact on online consumers' perceptions and attitudes. They concluded that message favorableness and message number in the online discussion forum impacted consumers' brand evaluations and attitudes toward the Web owner. More recently, Senecal and Nantel (2004) investigated consumers' usage of online recommendation sources and found that those participants in their study who consulted product recommendations selected recommended products twice as often as those who did not consult recommendations, with some differences across recommendation source and product category. Prior research has shown that there are a number of individual difference variables that are likely to impact consumers' response to the Internet (Bagozzi and Dholakia 2002; HennigThurau et al. 2004). To date, no study of which we are aware has looked at the extent to which susceptibility to interpersonal influence might impact how consumers respond to websites such as product review websites. Consumer's susceptibility to interpersonal influence (CSII) has been a source of interest for marketing researchers. This construct relates to the extent to which consumers are amenable to influence from different sources of information. Researchers opine that this is a general trait that varies across people (Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989; McGuire 1968). Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel (1989) and Deutsch and Gerard (1955) point to the different dimensions of CSII: (a) normative influence, that is, the tendency to conform to the expectation of others; and (b) informational influence, that is, the tendency to accept information from others as evidence about reality (Deutsch and Gerard 1955, p. 474). In the current study, the interest was in susceptibility to informational influence, given the nature of product review websites as sources of information for consumers. Park and Lessig (1977) suggest that in the case of informational influence, consumers may search for information from other consumers whom they regard as knowledgeable, or they form their judgments and decisions by observing others. Previous research has also shown an impact of informational influence on consumer behavior (see, e.g., Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; LaTour and Manrai 1989; Lord, Lee, Choong 2001; Park and Lessig 1977). Opinion Leadership and Product Review Websites Consumer opinion leadership has been of interest to marketers for a long time. It is based on the idea that there are "certain people who are most concerned about the issues and as well as most articulate..." (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet 1948). Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet (1948) referred to these people as opinion leaders, and they exert interpersonal influence. Corey (1971) posited that they were "models of opinion" who could be influencers on marketing efforts by word-of-mouth communication to people around them. Merton (1957) made a distinction between those opinion leaders that influence opinions in limited spheres and those opinion leaders who exert interpersonal influence in several different spheres. Most of the literature on opinion leadership relates to interpersonal communication in an off-line sphere (see, e.g., Bloch 1986; Corey 1971; Flynn, Goldsmith, and Eastman 1996), with a few recent studies investigating opinion leadership in an online sphere (Eastman, Eastman, and Eastman 2002; O'Cass and Fenech 2003). Eastman, Eastman, and Eastman (2002) focused primarily on insurance sales agents and their use of, and attitudes toward, the Internet. Using the Flynn, Goldsmith, and Eastman (1996) opinion leadership scale, they developed opinion leadership scores, as well as subjective knowledge scores, for these sales agents. They then compared these scores to attitudes toward the Internet. They found that agents with a higher level of subjective knowledge about the Internet were more likely to be opinion leaders about the Internet. In addition, opinion

71

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

leaders and agents with higher levels of subjective knowledge had a more favorable attitude about the Internet. However, they found significance only for the relationship with opinion leadership. Sales agents who were younger than the mean age of 46 years old were more likely to be opinion leaders, and they had a higher level of subjective knowledge of the Internet. A primary conclusion of these researchers was that that perceived knowledge and the willingness to discuss the Internet with others impacted the agents' attitude toward the Internet. They also concluded that younger agents would play a major role in how the Internet would be used. O'Cass and Fenech (2003) utilized the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and applied it in an assessment of adoption of the Internet for retail usage among a convenience sample of Australian Web users. Among the constructs in which they were interested was opinion leadership and its role in impacting Web usage. They found that it was one of the antecedents that impacted users' perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use of the Web for retail purchases. The foregoing leads us to expect that in the online domain, opinion leadership will have an impact on consumers' use of product review websites. We refer to opinion leadership in the online domain as E-opinion leadership and adapt the offline definition of the construct for the online domain: consumers' ability to influence other online consumers' opinions (e.g., Flynn, Goldsmith, and Eastman 1996; Reynolds and Darden 1971). E-opinion leaders are more likely than non-E-opinion leaders to give their opinions and the Internet provides a forum for them to dispense these opinions. Gender Prior research on men's and women's use of the Internet has revealed gender differences in online communication (Savicki, Lingenfekter, and Kelly 1997). This stream of research has investigated the link between gender and online behavior, with some of these focusing on the use of information in the online context (Garbarino and Strahilevitz 2004; Ha and Stoel 2004; Sheehan 1999). Sheehan (1999) conducted a study to assess gender differences in attitudes and behaviors towards marketing communications involving the gathering of online information. They also explored attitudes toward online privacy. They surveyed a group of Internet users regarding fifteen advertising and marketing situations. Their study established gender differences in concerns for online privacy. Women were more concerned than men about the type of information that they shared online. There were also gender differences in certain online behaviors, such as taking steps to protect one's privacy, with women taking fewer steps than men to safeguard their online privacy. Ha and Stoel (2004) found, for example, gender differences in the use of the Internet for information search for apparel products. They found that female consumers were more likely to use the Internet for this purpose than male consumers. Garbarino and Strahilevitz (2004) investigated gender differences in the perceptions of risks associated with shopping online. In one study, using a survey, they looked at how men's and women's online shopping risk perceptions changed when they received a recommendation from a friend. In a follow-up experimental study they examined whether there were differences between men and women in their willingness to make an online purchase, based on a friend's recommendation. They found gender differences, with women perceiving a higher level of risk in online purchasing than men. They also found that when a site was recommended by a friend that led to both a greater reduction in perceived risk and a stronger increase in willingness to buy online among women than among men. RESEARCH ISSUES In view of the foregoing discussion, the main purpose of this research study was to try to answer the following questions: R1: What is the level of awareness among consumers of product review websites? R2: To what extent do consumers use these websites in their decision making? R3: Do individual difference factors such as consumer susceptibility to informational influence and e-opinion leadership impact consumer use of product review websites? R4: Are there differences between men and women in the use of product review websites, given prior research that has shown gender differences in other areas of Internet usage? Answers to these questions will aid marketing communicators who are interested in using vehicles such as product review websites in their efforts to reach consumers. The characteristics of the consumers who use these websites in their decision-making could be used as segmentation variables, in order to distinguish those consumers for whom this vehicle is an effective medium of communication and those for whom it is not.

72

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

METHOD Questionnaire design A survey was conducted in order to answer the above research questions. The questionnaire used in the study contained items that asked whether respondents had ever made purchases online and their purchase histories, and about the respondents' level of awareness of product review websites and how they had become aware of them. The response to whether they had ever purchased items online was used as a screening question, since the interest was primarily in consumers who had made purchases online. Respondents were also asked about their visits to product review websites and whether they had ever provided feedback at these sites. They also completed the 4-item consumer susceptibility to informational influence scale, which is a part of the longer CSII scale (Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989) and a 5-item e-opinion leadership scale, which represented an adaptation of the Reynolds and Darden (1971) opinion leadership scale, but with the focus on online behavior. The items on the two scales referred to above are in Appendix A. Demographic information such as respondents' age, gender, race, income and employment levels, as well as level of education was also gathered. Sample Data were collected using students enrolled in marketing classes at a Midwestern metropolitan university in the US. These students were asked to administer the survey to an adult respondent other than themselves in the city where the University is located (see, e.g., Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Newell 2000; Lau and Ng 2001). They received extra course credit for their participation in data collection. Lau and Ng (2001) justified this data collection approach, citing the relatively inexpensive cost and reduction of non-useable questionnaires as one of its principal advantages. A total of 250 useable questionnaires were returned. The first question asked respondents whether they had ever made any online purchases. Those who responded no to this question were not included in the analysis, since the interest was in consumers who used the Internet to make purchases. As a result, 30 questionnaires were excluded from the data analysis stage. There were 115 men and 103 women (gender information for two respondents was missing). Most of the respondents (57.7%) fell into the 18-24 age range. The majority were Caucasian (80.5%), and were either college graduates (30%) or had some college experience (about 58%). A majority had incomes below $15,000 (35%), although there were a number of respondents who earned in excess of $50,000 (26.4%). Most were full-time (41.8%) or part-time (36.4%) employees. Refer to Table 1 for the profile of the sample used in this study. Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents

Construct The results of a principal components factor analysis involving the items on the susceptibility to informational influence scale and the e-opinion leadership scale using varimax rotation are reproduced in Table 2. This shows that the items loaded on the "appropriate" factors. Assessment of the scales' reliabilities was conducted using Cronbach alphas. The reliabilities were 0.75 for the SII scale and 0.89 for the E-opinion leadership scale, in both cases above the 0.70 level recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). Accordingly, the items on each scale were summed to form composite scales that measured the two constructs. The mean score on the susceptibility to informational influence scale was 17.46 (SD = 8.03), while the median score was 17.0. The mean score on the e-opinion leadership scale was 16.95 (SD = 5.03), while the median score was 17.0. In both cases, higher scores on the scales represented higher levels of the construct.

73

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

Table 2. Factor Analysis Results, Alphas, and Descriptive Statistics for Individual Difference Constructs being very aware of the existence of product review websites, with the majority being somewhat aware (38%) or aware (28%). Figure 1: Awareness of product review websites

Data Analysis After obtaining various descriptive statistics, a number of Mann-Whitney U-tests were performed, alternately using susceptibility to informational influence, e-opinion leadership, and gender as grouping variables. The analyses were performed using SPSS 12.0 for Windows. RESULTS Awareness of Product Review Websites and Sources Creating Awareness After obtaining various descriptive statistics, a number of Mann-Whitney U-tests were performed, alternately using susceptibility to informational influence, e-opinion leadership, and gender as grouping variables. The analyses were performed using SPSS 12.0 for Windows. Participants' awareness of the existence of product review websites was measured using a single Likert-type scale item. We provided a description to the participants and asked them to indicate how aware they were of product review websites prior to reading the description. The description read: When consumers have to shop online, they have access to websites where companies and consumers provide product reviews and feedback about consumers' experiences with purchasing and using certain types of products. For example, Amazon.com has a link on its website where consumers can provide reviews on books that they have purchased from that company. These websites can be classified as product review websites. Four options were provided: not at all; somewhat aware; aware; very aware. Of the participants in the sample, 13.6% indicated that they were not at all aware of the existence of product review websites. About 21% of the sample regarded themselves as

To determine what sources created awareness of product review websites, participants were asked to indicate from among several options how they became aware of these types of websites. The options were: word-of-mouth from friend, family member, other person; surfing the Internet; Internet search; news report/story; chatrooms/discussion forums; company communication; and other. Participants could check more than one source of information. The primary source creating awareness was Internet surfing. Of those who indicated that they were aware of the existence of product review websites, about 66% of them reported that they became aware of them while surfing the Internet. Off-line word-ofmouth communication was ranked as the second most influential source of awareness, with 34% reporting that they became aware of product review websites through this means. Company communication and online communication via chatrooms and discussion forums did not play a major role in creating awareness, as only 9.5% and 2.6%, respectively, of the sample reported these as sources of information. Visits to Product Review Websites and Factors Influencing Visits The current research was interested in the extent to which consumers visited product review websites and used information at these websites in their decision making. So, participants in this survey were asked (a) whether they had ever visited a product review website; (b) whether they had visited a product review website prior to purchasing a product

74

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

reviewed at that website; and (c) whether they had visited a product review website after they had made a product purchase. They were provided with options from which they selected the main reason for visiting a product review website prior to a product purchase. In the case of visits after a product purchase, an open-ended question solicited their reasons for visiting the site after a product purchase. The data from participants who indicated that they were unaware of the existence of product review websites were not included in the analyses related to items b and c. Of the total sample, 123 respondents indicated that they had visited a product review website before (56% of all participants who met the screening criterion; 65% of those who were aware of product review websites). Hence, participants in this study were more likely to have visited a product review website, but more so when they were aware of their existence. Seventy six (76) participants indicated that they had visited a product review website prior to making a product purchase. This was 62% of those who said that they had ever visited a product review website. There were significant differences in the reasons posited for these visits (x2[6] = 55.16, p < .00). The principal motivating factor was to use it as an additional source of information (35.5%; refer to Table 3). The next major motivating factor was the need for assurance or reassurance that they were making a good (correct) choice (27.6%). About 17% of the sample wanted to know what other consumers were thinking. Few used the website as a primary source of information prior to a product purchase (10.5%). A small portion of our sample (n = 43; 35% of all respondents who had visited a product review website before) had visited a website after they made a product purchase. The principal motivating factor was to see what other consumers thought about the product (28%), while the need for reassurance (21%) also figured prominently. A number of respondents gave oneword responses such as "curiosity" and "dissatisfaction," which were classified as Other reasons. About 19% wanted to provide feedback (see Table 4). Table 3. Factors influencing visit to product review website prior to product purchase (n = 76)

Table 4. Factors influencing visit to product review website after product purchase (n = 43)

Provision of Feedback at Product Review Websites The likelihood of participants providing feedback at product review websites was also explored. Since product review websites owe their existence to consumer willingness to post feedback regarding their experiences with various brands and companies, it was important to determine what percentage of the sample had engaged in this activity. Of the 123 participants that had ever visited a product review website, only 28% had provided feedback at one of these sites. Among those who had visited a product review website after a product purchase, this percentage increased to 44%. In general, the participants reported that extreme dissatisfaction or extreme satisfaction with a product purchase experience would be the main factors that would influence them to provide feedback at a product review website. This was the case also among those respondents who had visited a product review website after a product purchase (extreme dissatisfaction was ranked number 1 by 41% of these respondents; extreme satisfaction was ranked number 1 by 25% of these respondents).

75

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

E-opinion Leadership, Consumer Susceptibility to Informational Influence, Gender, and Product Review Websites The impact of two individual difference factors as well as gender on consumers' awareness of and use of product review websites was also investigated. On the basis of median splits of scores on the susceptibility to informational influence scale and the e-opinion leadership scale (refer to Table 2), respondents were divided into groups (high and low in susceptibility to interpersonal influence; high and low eopinion leadership). Several Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted, alternately using these three variables. The results of the Mann-Whitney U tests are reported in Tables 5 through 7. Table 5. Mann-Whitney U test Results: E-opinion leadership Table 6. Mann-Whitney U test results: Susceptibility to Informational Influence

Table 7. Mann-Whitney U test results: Gender

As indicated in Table 5, the tests showed that e-opinion leadership had a significant impact on all the dependent variables of interest, with the exceptions of perceptions of the importance of product review websites to consumers (z = 1.68, p = 0.09) and whether they had visited a product review website after a product purchase (z = -1.05, p = 0.29). Eopinion leadership significantly affected (a) awareness of

76

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

product review websites (z = -3.25, p = 0.00), with high eopinion leadership respondents being more likely to be aware of these websites than low e-opinion leadership respondents; (b) whether respondents had ever visited a product review website (z = -3.15, p = 0.00); (c) whether respondents had ever visited a product review website prior to a product purchase (z = -3.12, p = 0.00); (d) perceptions of these sites' influence on consumer decision making (z = -3.26, p = 0.00); and (e) provision of feedback at product review websites (z = -3.49, p = 0.00). In all these cases, mean ranks for high e-opinion leadership respondents were significantly higher than those for low e-opinion leadership respondents. However, regardless of whether they were low e-opinion leaders or high e-opinion leaders, respondents perceived product review websites as important to consumers but were not likely to have visited one after a product purchase. Unlike the pattern with e-opinion leadership, the pattern for susceptibility of informational influence indicated that this construct had a significant impact only on perceptions of the importance of product review websites to consumers (z = 2.51, p = 0.01), with the mean rank for high SII respondents exceeding that of low SII respondents. There were no significant differences in mean ranks across the other variables. The results indicated gender differences in the cases of awareness of product review websites (z = -3.15, p = 0.00); whether respondents had ever visited a product review website (z = -3.12, p = 0.00); and whether they had visited one prior to a product purchase (z = -2.58, p = 0.01). In all cases, the mean ranks for male respondents exceeded those of female respondents. None of the other variables was susceptible to gender differences. DISCUSSION A principal aim of this study was to glean information on consumers' awareness and use of product review websites in their decision making. This was against the background that consumers now have at their disposal, in the online environment, a rich array of comments and opinions, from myriad sources, regarding experiences with various products and brands. The Internet has fostered this consumer-toconsumer articulation, and, as is the case with off-line wordof-mouth communication, these online consumer-toconsumer articulations are likely to have implications for consumer behavior. In addition, the impact of two individual difference factors, consumer susceptibility to informational influence and e-opinion leadership, and gender on consumer use of these product review websites, was investigated. From a theoretical point of view, this study indicates that there are a number of individual difference factors that ought to be incorporated in any investigation or discussion of the effects on online consumer-to-consumer articulations. It was seen from this study that consumers' perceptions of their level of eopinion leadership was one variable that impacted their awareness and use of product review websites. It had an impact on all but two of the seven variables that were assessed. Hence, this is an important construct in the discourse on online consumer articulations. Even though susceptibility to informational influence was not as overarching in its effects, there was still evidence that this construct impacted perceptions of the importance of product review websites to consumers. Consumers who are susceptible to informational influence attach more importance to these types of websites than do consumers who are less susceptible to informational influence. The results also lend support to the various studies that have found gender differences in online communication and consumer behavior. Men were more likely to be aware of product review websites and to have visited them before and also before a product purchase. Both groups felt that these sites were important and had an impact on consumer decision making. In addition, there were no gender differences in posting feedback at product review websites. Hence, any model that purports to explain how consumers respond to online consumer-to-consumer articulations needs to take into account the role of gender. These results also hold managerial implications. Generally, consumers are aware of the existence of product review websites and are likely to visit them when they are aware of them. Consumers use them primarily for reassurance and as source of additional information. It means, therefore, that marketers have to strive to minimize negative online consumer articulations, given the reasons that consumers use product review websites. This warrants additional attention, as respondents in this survey indicated that it was the level of dissatisfaction or satisfaction with a marketer that would prompt them to provide feedback on one of these websites. A task that marketing communications managers and brand managers have to undertake is the identification of low and high e-opinion leadership consumers. If companies want to improve their offerings to consumers they could target high eopinion leaders for their feedback and recommendations, since these consumers are more likely than low e-opinion

77

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

leaders to generate feedback to companies. Obviously, any online feedback that these consumers provide would be available to other interested consumers. Results also indicated that consumers who are highly susceptible to informational influence differ from lowly susceptible to informational influence consumers in their perceptions of the importance of product review websites. So, marketing communications managers and brand managers could develop review websites and target these consumers with them. There are also implications from a public policy point of view. Some companies may manipulate website information in order to influence and obtain consumers, aware that various consumers use product review websites prior to decision making. So, for example, a company official who enters a forum where a company's products are reviewed and posts recommendations or positive feedback under the guise of being an ordinary forum user would be doing something unethical. However, with the anonymity that the Internet provides, one is not always certain who is posting what information in cyberspace. Hence, it is important that there be some mechanism in place to monitor the extent to which companies associated with different websites manipulate consumer feedback on these websites. The caveat "buyer beware" is also applicable to consumers who are reliant on these types of websites for their decision making. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH As with many research projects, this project suffered from some limitations. A main concern is that students enrolled in marketing classes at a Midwestern university in the United States administered the survey to adults in the city in which the university is located. Hence, this sample was not a probability sample. So, there are limits on the extent to which findings from this study can be generalized to the entire population of Internet users. However, given the exploratory nature of this study, it does contribute to an appreciation of the importance of taking into account the possible impact of product review websites on consumer decision making. Efforts should be made to replicate this study with other groups of consumers and across cultures, since it is likely that crosscultural differences in consumer response to product review websites also exist. A screening criterion was used that excluded participants that had never purchased items online, since the principal focus was on those consumers who make online purchases. However, it is very possible that there are consumers who may rely on online product review websites when they make purchases in traditional brick-and-mortar retail establishments. These consumers, even though they use product review websites, were excluded from our study. Future research should incorporate these consumers in investigating the use of product review websites. Differences in reasons for usage between online and offline purchasers could be explored. Some respondents in this study also indicated that they use these websites for reassurance. It would, therefore, be worthwhile to investigate the extent to which these websites could play a role in fostering or minimizing such negative consumer emotions as cognitive dissonance. The role of two individual difference factors and how they related to consumer use of product review websites was explored. There are a number of other individual difference factors that could be considered to determine the extent to which they impact consumer use of product review websites. A factor closely related to e-opinion leadership is e-mavenism (see, e.g., Walsh & Mitchell 2001). The extent to which consumers regard themselves as e-mavens is likely to impact their visits to product review websites and their provision of feedback at these websites. Consumers' perceptions of their general expertise with using the Internet might also impact whether they rely on product review websites. This is an issue that is open to exploration. In addition, it is likely that demographic factors such as age and levels of education might have an impact on consumers' perceptions of these types of websites. This, too, can be investigated, so that marketers can better profile consumers who use these websites in their decision-making. Credibility of the websites will likely impact the extent to which consumers rely on these types of websites in their decision making. For example, consumers might perceive consumer-operated websites differently from companyoperated websites. In addition, at some websites, consumers are paid to encourage their feedback. Some consumers might discount the feedback provided at these "pay-for-feedback" websites. Future research should investigate the factors that enhance product review website credibility. Also, across cultures, there are likely to be differences in consumers' reliance on sources of information such as product review websites. Cross-cultural studies that seek to identify these differences should be undertaken. The issue of consumer use of product review websites will continue to attract attention from both researchers and marketing communications managers and brand managers, given the impact that the Internet continues to have on

78

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

consumer behavior. The growth in these websites means that much exchange of information can take place in virtual communities, some of which marketers can control and some of which they cannot control. Hence, it is necessary for them to be able to establish profiles of consumers that are likely to use these websites, as well as determine what factors will likely influence how consumers perceive the information available at these websites. REFERENCE Apanovitch, Anne Marie, Stevan E. Hobfoll, and Peter Salovey (2002), "The Effects of Social Influence on Perceptual and Affective Reactions to Scenes of Sexual Violence," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (March), 443-464. Armstrong, Arthur and John Hagel III (1996), "The Real Value of On-line Communities," Harvard Business Review, 74 (May/June), 134-141. Asch, Solomon E. (1955), "Opinions and Social Pressure," Scientific American, 193, 31-35. Bagozzi, Richard P. and Utpal M. Dholakia (2002), "Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities," Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16 (Spring), 2-21. Bailey, Ainsworth A. (2004). Thiscompanysucks.com: The use of the Internet in negative consumer-to-consumer articulations. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10 (3), 169-182. Bearden, William O., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel (1989), "Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 473-481. Bickart, Barbara and Robert M. Schindler (2001), "Internet Forums as Influential Sources of Consumer Information," Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15 (Summer), 31-40. Bloch, Peter H. (1986). The Product Enthusiast: Implications for Marketing Strategy. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3 (3), 51-62. Blodgett, Jeffrey G., Donald H. Granbois, and Rockney G. Walters (1993), "The Effects of Perceived Justice on Complainants' Negative Word-of-Mouth Behavior and Repatronage Intentions," Journal of Retailing, 69 (Winter), 399-328. Bone, Paula Fitzgerald (1995), "Word-of-Mouth Effects on Short-term and Long-term Product Judgments," Journal of Business Research, 32 (March), 213-223. Boush, David M. and Lynn Kahle (2001), "Evaluating Negative Information in Online Consumer Discussions: From Qualitative Analysis to Signal Detection," Journal of Euromarketing, 11 (2), 89-105. Burnkrant, Robert E. and Alain Cousineau (1975), "Informational and Normative Social Influence on Buyer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (December), 206215. Butcher, Ken, Beverly Sparks, and Frances O'Callaghan (2002), "Effect of Social Influence on Repurchase Intentions," Journal of Services Marketing, 16 (6), 503-512. Calder, Bobby J. and Robert E. Burnkrant (1977), "Interpersonal Influence on Consumer Behavior: An Attribution Theory Approach," Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (June), 29-38. Chatterjee, Patrali (2001), "Online Reviews: Do Consumers Use Them?" in Advances in Consumer Research, M. C. Gilly and J. Myers-Levy, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 129-134. Chiou, Jyh-Shen and Cathy Cheng (2003), "Should a Company have Message Boards on its Web Site?" Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17 (Summer), 50-61. Corey, Lawrence G. (1971), "People Who Claim to be Opinion Leaders: Identifying Their Characteristics by Self-report," Journal of Marketing, 35 (October), 48-53. Deutsch, Morton and Harold B. Gerard (1955), "A Study of Normative and Informational Influence upon Individual Judgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 7 (November), 1-15. Dholakia, Utpal M., Suman Basuroy, and Kerry Soltysinski (2002), "Auction or Agent (or Both?) A Study of Moderators of the Herding Bias in Digital Auctions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (June), 115-130. Dholakia, Utpal M. and Kerry Soltysinski (2001), "Coveted or Overlooked? The Psychology of Bidding for Comparable Listings in Digital Auctions," Marketing Letters, 12 (August), 225-237.

79

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

Dolinski, N., M Nawrat, and I. Rudak (2001), "Dialogue Involvement as a Social Influence Technique," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1395-1406. Eastman, Jacqueline K., Alan D. Eastman, and Kevin L. Eastman (2002), "Insurance Sales Agents and the Internet: The Relationship between Opinion Leadership, Subjective Knowledge, and Internet Attitudes," Journal of Marketing Management, 18 (April), 259-285. Flynn, Leisa Reinecke, Ron E. Goldsmith, and Jacqueline K. Eastman (1996), "Opinion Leaders and Opinion Seekers: Two New Measurement Scales," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (Spring), 137-147. Garbarino, Ellen and Michal Strahilevitz (2004), "Gender Differences in the Perceived Risk of Buying Online and the Effects of Receiving a Site Recommendation," Journal of Business Research, 57 (July), 768-775. Goldsmith, Ron E., Barabra A. Lafferty, and Stephen J. Newell (2000), "The Impact of Corporate Credibility and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements and Brands," Journal of Advertising, 29 (Fall), 43-54 Ha, Young and Leslie Stoel (2004), "Internet Apparel Shopping Behaviors: The Influence of General Innovativeness," International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32 (8/9), 377-385. Hanson, Ward A. and Daniel S. Putler (1996), "Hits and Misses: Herd Behavior and Online Product Popularity," Marketing Letters, 7 (October), 297-305. Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, Gianfranco Walsh, and Dwayne D. Gremler (2004), "Electronic Word-ofMouth via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet," Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (Winter), 38-52. Laczniak, Russell N., Thomas E. DeCarlo, and Sridhar N. Ramaswami (2001), "Consumers' Responses to Negative Word-of-Mouth Communication: An Attribution Theory Perspective," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 57-73. LaTour, Stephen A. and Ajay K. Manrai (1989), "Interactive Impact of Informational and Normative Influence on Donations," Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 327335 Lau, Geok Theng and Sophia Ng (2001), "Individual and Situational Factors Influencing Negative Word-of-Mouth Behaviour," Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18 (September), 163-178. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet (1948), The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign, New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press. Lord, Kenneth R., Myung-Soo Lee, and Peggy Choong (2001), "Differences in Normative and Informational Social Influence," in Advances in Consumer Research, Joan MeyersLevy and Mary Gilly, eds., Salt Lake City, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 280-285. McGuire, William J. (1968), "Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence," in Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert, eds., Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1130-1187. Merton, Robert K. (1968), Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe, IL: Free Press Nunnally, Jim C. and Ira H. Bernstein (1994), Psychometric Theory, New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill. O'Cass, Aron and Tino Fenech (2003), "Web Retailing Adoption: Exploring the Nature of Internet Users Web Retailing Behavior," Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 10 (March), 81-94. O'Leary, Mick (2002), "Epinions Creates top Product Community," Information Today, 19 (July/August), 14-16. Park, C. W. and Lessig, P.V. (1977), "Students and Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference Group Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (September), 102110. Perry, Joellen (2000), "Online Reviews are Giving Consumers a Bigger Voice," US News & World Report, February 7, 2000, p. 61. Ratchford, Brian, Myung-Soo Lee, and Debabrata Talukdar (2003), "The Impact of the Internet on Information Search for Automobiles," Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (May), 193209. Reynolds, Fred D. and William R. Darden (1971), "Mutually Adaptive Effects of Interpersonal Communication," Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (November), 449-454. Richins, Marsha L. (1982), "An Investigation of Consumers' Attitudes toward Complaining," in Advances in Consumer

80

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

Research, A. A. Mitchell, ed., St. Louis, MO: Association for Consumer Research, 502-506. --- (1983), "Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot Study," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Winter), 68-78. --- (1984), "Word of Mouth Communication as Negative Information," in Advances in Consumer Research, T. Kinnear, ed., St. Louis, MO: Association for Consumer Research, 697702. Salancik, Gerald R. and Jeffrey Pfeffer (1978), "A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design," Administrative Science Quarterly, 23 (June), 224-253. Savicki, Victor, Dawn Lingenfekter, and Merle Kelly (1997), "Gender Language Style and Group Composition in Internet Discussion Groups," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue3. Schlosser, Ann E. and Sharon Shavitt (2002), "Anticipating Discussion about a Product: Rehearsing What to Say Can Affect Your Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 101-115, Senecal, Sylvain and Jacques Nantel (2004), "The Influence of Online Product Recommendations on Consumers' Online Choices," Journal of Retailing, 80 (Summer), 159-169. Sheehan, Kim Bartel (1999), "An Investigation of Gender Differences in On-line Privacy Concerns and Resultant Behaviors," Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(Autumn), 2438. Singh, Jagdip (1990), "Voice, Exit, and Negative Word-ofMouth Behaviors: An Investigation across Three Service Categories," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 18 (Winter), 1-15. Walsh, Gianfranco and Vincent-Wayne Mitchell (2001), "German Market Mavens' Decision Making Styles," Journal of Euromarketing, 10 (4), 195-212. Woodside, Arch G. and M. Wayne Delozier (1976), "Effects of Word of Mouth Advertising on Consumer Risk Taking," Journal of Advertising, 5 (Fall), 12-19. APPENDIX A: Questionnaire Items used in Survey A. Consumer Susceptibility to Informational Influence Scale 1. I often consult other people to help choose the best alternative available from a product class (INF1). 2. To make sure I buy the right product or brand, I often observe what others are buying and using (INF2). 3. If I have little experience with a product, I often ask my friends about the product (INF3). 4. I frequently gather information from friends and family about a product before I buy (INF4). B. Online Opinion Leadership* 1. My friends, family, and neighbors often ask me my advice about shopping online (EOL1). 2. I sometimes influence my friends to shop online (EOL2). 3. People are more likely to come to me more often than I go to them for information about online shopping (EOL3). 4. I feel that I am generally regarded by others as a good source of advice about online shopping (EOL4). 5. I can think of at least one person whom I have told about online shopping in the last six months (EOL5). *All items were measured on 7-point scales anchored by Strongly disagree and Strongly agree. C. Awareness of Product Review Websites Description: When consumers have to shop online, they have access to websites where companies and consumers provide product reviews and feedback about consumers' experiences with purchasing and using certain types of products. For example, Amazon.com has a link on its website where consumers can provide reviews on books that they have purchased from that company. These websites can be classified as product review websites. Prior to reading the above, were you aware of the existence of product review websites? Please check one. (Not at all _____ Somewhat aware _____Aware _____ Very aware ______) D. Visit to Product Review Websites Have you ever visited one of these product review websites? (Yes ____ No ____) E. Visit to Product Review Website Prior to Product Purchase Have you ever visited any product review websites prior to making an online purchase? (Yes ___No ___)

81

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Fall 2005

F. Visit to Product Review Website After Product Purchase Have you ever visited a product review website after you made a product purchase? (Yes ___No ___) G. Perceptions of Influence of Product Review Websites To what extent do product review websites influence your online purchase decisions? (Not at all______A little _____ A lot _____ It depends on product _____) H. Perceptions of Importance of Product Review Websites How important do you think product review websites are for consumers? Please circle a number. Not very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Important I. Provision of Feedback at Product Review Website I have provided feedback/review at a product review website. (True _____ False ____) ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ainsworth Anthony Bailey (Ph. D, University of Iowa) is an assistant professor of marketing in the College of Business Administration, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA. His research focuses on the effects of different sources and various marketing communications stimuli on consumption behavior. He has had articles published or forthcoming in Journal of Marketing Communications, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Psychology and Marketing, and Journal of Advertising. E-mail: ainsworth.bailey@utoledo.edu.